Hacker News Reader

Comment by seibelj | Hacker News Reader

I would never support getting rid of cash, it's a basic right to spend money without being tracked.

it's a basic right to spend money without being tracked.

No it's not. I very much want there to be a way to spend money anonymously, but I can't frame that as a 'basic right'.

It is necessary for a free society that citizens are able to engage in economic transations without asking the permission of an unaccountable private entity.

It is not in the interest of a free, fair, and just society to give such an entity the power to tax and control transactions at their leisure.

If you consider money to be a form of speech (I don't but it's been successfully argued in US case law) then I'd argue it is a right as I'd argue availability of anonymity is a prerequisite of free speech.

Whenever one makes a purchase, the price structure of the good that was purchased changes, and in the case of goods/assets that have a yield, it also changes its interest rate structure. This is information being propagated from the consumer to the merchant, via the price system, using money. So while the act of exchanging money for goods is not information in and of itself, as speech is, this act results in the propagation of relevant information from consumers to merchants to producers.

Do you mean, within an existing legal framework? Then yeah, but clearly our existing legal frameworks are failing in important ways so start thinking about what rights you actually want rather than what you think you can get.

It's a form of association and assembly. Both of which are considered legal rights in US and other jurisdictions, with the proviso that they are conducted peaceably.

One could argue it's inherent in a right to privacy.

I'm just not sure you can construct a coherent argument around that though. Obviously a seller isn't obligated to accept cash; is there a suggestion that we should legally require sellers to do so?

No, but I think an argument can be made that if both parties agree to the transaction, then it is their right to carry it out.

>> a seller isn't obligated to accept cash

Isn't he? I don't know how it works in US, but at least in Poland every banknote has printed statement that it is "the legal payment method ". The law institutes a fine for any seller that refuses payment in cash.

In the US airplanes (that I've personally flown on) stopped taking cash and are card only onboard. ( example: http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/blog/morning_call/2015/01...

Apparently Citibank stopped handling cash in Australia: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/citibank-is-the-first-aust... (not sure how that works out)

A coffee shop in Maryland stopped taking cash after several robberies https://consumerist.com/2017/02/03/sick-of-being-robbed-coff...

Salad chain Sweetgreen also stopped taking cash https://consumerist.com/2016/12/22/seeking-sweetgreen-salad-...

Also most landlords won't accept cash.

There's others, but that's just off the top of my head. I've been in card-only situations before.

IANAL, but In the US, banknotes specifically reference "debts." For places where you pay after receiving the goods or services (e.g. many restaurants) they must accept cash, but they may refuse to accept cash if you pay prior to receiving goods & services.

A seller in the US absolutely does not need to accept cash. Certainly most online merchants won't accept cash but there are also examples like onboard purchases on airlines where cash isn't accepted.

Relevant statement from US Treasury: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages...

It's a basic right to engage in economic transactions without being tracked, but I don't agree you necessarily have the right to "spend money" (as in government currency) without being tracked.

If you want to engage in transactions without being tracked in a cashless society, you always have the option of using alternative currencies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com